Elonka wrote:

] If there's any one detail from the site that you really want
] to argue, fine, bring it on. I've done enough of my own
] research on this that I'm confident of the truth. *I* can tell
] from a glance that the site is garbage, but if you want help
] debunking, fine, let me know.

Laughing Boy built a straw man arguement to attack. LB, the guy I quoted from the newspaper later retracted the statement. It was enlightening because of the retraction a few days later. Those first words though, that was an initial response from someone who dealt with demolitions. From day one, people had independent impressions and ideas about the structural failures.

Elonka has built a similar straw man and attacked it. No one who seriously ponders 9/11 is arguing that it did not happen. That would be as foolish (as Elonka correctly states) as saying the Holocaust did not happen.

It's obvious though, that this thread has generated some interest and some emotion. That's because this is an important issue that people still care about.

Many people question the official accounting. I am one of them. I believe the WTC site should have been more thoroughly investigated before the evidence was destroyed (or "recycled" if you prefer a different term.)

I've tracked this issue since it happened. I haven't kept a good journal, but there were articles I'd catch about the hasty cleanup. The site quotes one:

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." -- NY Daily News 04/16/02.

This was a common theme with some victims' families, that there was no deep effort to investigate all possibilities. I understand that FEMA headed an investigation. Out of the scrap they picked through, they've allowed 146 pieces of steel to be kept for future study. Some families dare to utter the words "white wash" and "cover up."

Back to the site that I meme'd, I don't agree with everything there. The author is in the camp of people that believe whatever hit the Pentagon was not a plane. I believe it was a plane. There were too many eye witnesses that saw a plane. But also, in those eye witness accounts, (also detailed on the site) many people mention seeing a C-130 shadowing the airliner as it approached the Pentagon, and circling around shortly after it happened. It's those little insights that start to add up over time. It's why I like sites like these.

This site has led me to other pieces of information, such as the purported audio and transcript of one of FEMA's first responders who showed up Monday evening:

Dan Rather: "Tom Kennedy, a rescue worker with the National Urban Search and Rescue which is part of FEMA..."

Tom Kennedy: "We are currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site....."

That clip is available here: http://www.tpromo.com/gk/jan02/010202.htm

It gives me another question to ask, why did a team of FEMA first responders arrive Monday evening in New York? Was this a precaution based on specific intelligence? Is this just mis/disinformation?

I also found an interesting transcript that purports to be from 60 Minutes:

Reporter: ...In another part of the tower George Tabeek got a call that three Port Authroity workers were trapped in command center on the 22nd floor.

Tabeek (fuzzy sound-- as if dubbed in from an edited-for broadcast phone interview): I said, "Stay calm, I'll be up there." I went to the battalion chief; he assigned a lieutenant -- it's all I know is his first name, his first name was Andy ...

Reporter (clear sound-- not phone interview): Andy Desparino of Engine Company One

Tabeek: And worked our way all the way up to the twenty-second floor

Reporter (fuzzy -- phone interview clip again): Are people going down?

Tabeek: People were coming down. I was telling them, "Please be calm" walk to the left

Reporter (clear -- with jet impact sound in background during first sentence): What George Tabeek didn't know was that a second jet had just struck tower seven (sic) And when they reached the twenty-second floor of Tower One Desperino and his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped inside. Helen Reese, meanwhile, was at another Port Authority Command Center talking to those unable to get down from the upper floors ...

This will lead me to cross-check against available 60 Minutes transcripts. That means I will be subscribing to that service so I can pull the transcript. This is more or less my method.

The bulk of my research however is in the collapse of the buildings themselves. I believe it was a controlled demolition. I try not to mire myself in the debate of who would orchestrate such a thing and focus on what my eyes see in the videos and the independent analysis that crunch numbers.

This is not about election year politics. People have doubted the "facts" that two steel frame buildings designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (a very similar plane to Boeing's 767; 707 cruises faster and 767 is heavier) failed completely because of fire. It is unprecedented in the history of modern architecture.

Now, I sense that ad hominem attacks may come my way. I really do appreciate the responses to the thread and would like to keep the discussiong going. I know this is an emotionally charged issue because you never know how the other person was personally affected by the tragedies that day. I will state up front that I did not know anyone who was killed that day, so I have no emotional attachment.

That's the problem with a lot of 9/11 research sites. The analysis and monologue is usually so thick with rhetoric and mockery that you could easily feel insulted. I'm hoping to found a site dedicated to factual research without the Bravo Sierra.

LB: About the video, I watched the video using an old version of Windows Media Player and was able to fluidly slide back and forth. It's unfortunate we don't have easy access to cleaner video than mpeg1. Still, I compared the motions from a couple of frames of reference, the high contrast squares of the white on the antenna and the "dish" on the far right. Also compared the two silver points of contrast below the white in the antenna with the front edge of the building. The antenna seems to move first to my eyes.

Elonka: About specific points on that page to debunk. Here's one:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7.html

Watch the videos. WTC 7's collapse later that day looks like a classic controlled demolition, would you agree? Is it not beyond the realm of possibility to speculate that if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition that day, WTC 1 and 2 may have been as well? Seriously, watch the WTC 7 collapse videos from a few angles. I will provide specific links so you don't have to wade through any "conspiracy-theorist garbage:"

http://911.justiceforwoody.org/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
http://911.justiceforwoody.org/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
http://911.justiceforwoody.org/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

The FEMA report on WTC 7 was inconclusive. My eyes tell me it was a controlled demolition. I am not the only one who believes this. Convince us that it was not a controlled demolition, please.

RE: 9-11 Research